[sneak]

It happens without obtaining consent. Notice is not consent. It's nonconsensual.

The example I provide: imagine if you put up a sign at the entrance to a party that said "by entering this party, you are going to be groped".

Telling someone you are about to violate consent is not the same as getting affirmative consent. Equating them is dishonest.

[dangus]

That sign example is exactly what the film industry does to notify people of filming activity inside an establishment. It’s perfectly reasonable.

Using the example of sexual assault just makes the issue look more extreme than it is.

You might as well say “By entering this building you consent to be murdered,” but we all know that’s taking the slippery slope too far.

Usage statistics and bug telemetry isn’t the same as getting groped. Homebrew is up front about exactly what is collected: https://docs.brew.sh/Analytics

[sneak]

You don't need consent to film someone in a public space. It's done as a courtesy, not a legal requirement.

My computer is not a public space and the software that is installed on it, and when, and the IP address used to do so, are private information. Exfiltrating that data without consent is a violation of my right to privacy, full stop. Nothing that is said, no notice that is provided, can change that.

You could just as well say "by entering this building you consent to be murdered". It illustrates the point similarly: a lack of objection is not affirmative consent.

[dangus]

The need to gain consent is highly dependent on what is being consented to.

If you invite me over for dinner I don’t need to get your consent to wash my hands or use your bathroom. That is implied by inviting me over to dinner.

That’s why I think the “consent to be murdered” argument is such a bad analogy. It assumes the slippery slope goes all the way.

Just because I think (e.g.) Homebrew’s analytics doesn’t need opt-in consent doesn’t mean I believe that all forms of analytics and data collection shouldn’t need opt-in consent.

I think that an application having a default that collects non-personal crash and bug analytics is acceptable, while an application that collects more detailed personal information isn’t.

[Firmwarrior]

Haha, man, I wish more people than literally just you and I still thought this way

Every fucking piece of software out there is packed with shady spyware and BS, and everyone thinks he's entitled to treat users as cattle and do whatever he wants to them.

It's probably going to keep getting worse at this rate too. It'll become illegal to do anything privately or anonymously in the name of preventing misinformation and spam/click fraud

[robin_reala]

Well, no. To amend your example, let’s go with the sign saying “This is a gropy sort of party. Please use one of these convenient ‘I don’t want to be groped’ stickers before coming in if that’s not your thing.’”